Some Notes on the Coinage of Elizabeth I with Special Reference to Her Hammered Silver
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
SOME NOTES ON THE COINAGE OF ELIZABETH I WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO HER HAMMERED SILVER By I. D. BROWN INTRODUCTION WHEN considering the transformation which occurred in the English coinage between the end of the Middle Ages and the late seventeenth century, it is surprising to find a period of forty-three years during which the coins are chiefly remarkable for the uniformity shown dur- ing the reign of Elizabeth I. It is this uniformity which has led to the absence of practically any detailed study of the coins of this reign. Yet, in spite of the uniformity shown by the coins themselves, there can be traced during the reign the beginnings of those changes that were to make the numismatics of the following century so eventful. The economy of the country was in a period of slow but steady change. After the recoinage of the silver early in the reign, which did so much to stabilize the English economy, there was the steady influx of precious metals from America. The increasing output of the gold coinage, and the fall in the price of bullion that followed, had led, by the end of the reign, to the first of the series of crises that resulted from the use of a bimetallic standard. It was during this reign also that the new "crown" gold standard finally established itself, bringing with it the denominations of the pound of twenty shillings and its fractions, in succession to the old "fine" gold denominations based on the ryal or noble of fifteen shillings. Likewise, the medieval groat was finally superseded by the shilling and sixpence, and the first sug- gestions were made advocating a copper coinage. As well as the abandonment of the medieval denominations, this period saw the last coins struck bearing the "Lombardic" lettering. Machinery was first used for coin manufacture, although soon abandoned, but ex- periments were resumed before the end of the reign and were con- tinued until the hammer method was finally abandoned in 1662. The numismatic studies of this period have been very one-sided. Owing to the abundant documentary evidence available for this reign, most authors have tended to ignore the coins. Yet there are a number of interesting aspects of the history of the reign for which the coins are likely to prove useful sources. Before these can be studied, an accurate and complete description of the ordinary coinage of the reign is necessary. Part of this paper will be devoted to pro- viding a beginning for such an account of the hammered silver. Amongst the problems which a study of the coins is likely to help solve are those of the economics of the time. A study of hoards, for example, can tell much about the periods of activity at the Mint, and about the state of the currency and its geographical and social distri- bution. The fourth section of this paper is devoted to a preliminary 569 Some Notes on the Coinage of Elizabeth I with survey of such hoard evidence. Other problems concern the develop- ment of machinery for coin manufacture, the extent of currency of trade tokens, and the experiments for a copper coinage. These are problems for which documentary evidence is scant, and they provide ample scope for numismatic research. DISCUSSION OF THE HAMMERED SILVER COINAGE The most urgent need at the moment is for an accurate list of the many dates and varieties of hammered silver coin which were struck during this reign. The hammered gold coinage has been so listed by C. A. Whitton,1 but the companion article on the hammered silver coinage by H. A. Parsons2 omits to mention the location of the rarer coins and, indeed, does not indicate which are the rare and which the common pieces. In Table VI (Appendix I) I have provided such a list. Each privy-mark and date which I have seen has been recorded and, by means of footnotes, a large number of the principal varieties has been included. Also included in parentheses are the varieties which I have not yet managed to trace but which are recorded by Hawkins3 or Parsons.2 While it seems likely that some of these do exist, others probably do not, and even if they do they must necessarily be rare. Most Elizabethan coins are plentiful but are often in poor condition, and many of the dates and privy-marks are difficult to decipher. A number of coins with strange and ingenious attributions can be shown, by a study of punches, to be quite normal varieties. With the larger denominations (shilling, sixpence, and groat) an attempt has been made to give the relative frequencies with which the different types occur. The figures given next to the date in Table VI indicate the approximate issue in millions of coins and are probably correct to within 25 per cent. A discussion of the value of this evidence, which is derived from a statistical survey of twenty-one large hoards, is given in a later section of this paper. A perusal of the documentary and numismatic evidence allows some general comments to be made about this coinage. Privy-marks Martlet and Cross Crosslet were the only two marks used concurrently on the English hammered silver during this reign.4 That only one privy-mark was otherwise in use at a time can be asserted on the ground that only one mint was in operation. This assertion is sup- ported by documentary evidence where this is available,5 even though the dated coins might seem to suggest otherwise. It was, however, the privy-mark and not the date which was used for accounting pur- poses in the Mint, and in dating these coins it is, therefore, the privy- mark which is important. An attempt has been made in Table VI to 1 Numismatic Circular, 1948, col. 535; 1949, col. 57. 2 The Hammered Silver Coins of Elizabeth, Spink & Sons, 1947, originally published in the Numismatic Circular, 1947, col. 387, &c. 3 Silver Coinage of England, 3rd ed., 1887, p. 300. 4 H. Symonds, Num. Chron. 1916, p. 98. 5 e.g. H. Symonds, Num. Chron. 1916, pp. 101-2 for the years 1572-82. 570 Some Notes on the Coinage of Elizabeth I with fix a date for the beginning and end of each privy-mark period. In some cases the Mint records give the actual dates between which any given privy-mark was in use,1 in other cases a knowledge of the date of the pyx trial2 fixes the latest date for the end of the period, although in a number of cases a considerable interval elapsed between the clos- ing of the pyx and the date of the trial.3 Generally speaking I have assumed, in the absence of any definite information, that the date of the pyx trial marks the day on which the privy-mark was changed, unless there is internal evidence for an earlier date. Where neither of these methods is applicable it is only possible to guess the date, which may consequently be as much as six months in error. These guesses have been made having due regard for the dates on the coins and the relative abundance of coins of different dates and privy-marks. In some cases it has been necessary to assume that the rate of coinage was maintained reasonably steady, which is, of course, not a valid assumption. Bearing in mind that it is the privy-marks which officially date the coins rather than the year stamped on the dies, it is apparent that, although the dies were often brought up to date by overstamping the last figure of the year, coins were frequently issued bearing dates one or even two years old.4 A study of the incidence of overmarking of the dates or privy-marks with a later date or privy-mark suggests the way in which the dies were prepared and used at this period.During the years when Sir Richard Martin was both master and warden (1582-99) it seems likely that the dies were prepared with both the date and privy-marks stamped on them. When the privy-mark was changed (and we may assume that, since the periods between pyxes were so irregular, little warning of the change was normally given), the Mint had to stamp the new privy-mark over the old one on all the dies in stock at the time. The stock usually consisted of a supply of these dies sufficient for about a month's coining, and this would account for the frequency with which overmarked coins occur during this period.5 It is unlikely that the authorities were as scrupulous about changing the year on the dies as they were in changing the privy-mark.6 This accounts for the overlap in dates which occurs for example between the privy-marks Bell and A, both of which possess coins dated 1582 and 1583. At times when the Mint was more careful 1 e.g. H. Symonds, Num. Chron. 1916, pp. 101-2 for the years 1572-82. 2 Quoted by H. Symonds, Num. Chron. 1916, pp. 99-105. It is interesting to note that of the 17 dates of pyx trials mentioned: 4 occur on the day after the end of the Hilary Term (13 Feb.); 4 occur on the day after the end of the Easter Term; 1 occurs on the day after the end of the Trinity Term; 1 occurs on the day after the end of the Michaelmas Term (29 Nov.); and 7 do not appear to be related to any specific event.